Donald Rumsfeld, in his address at the American Legion’s national convention, said that those who oppose the administrations tactics in Iraq and Afghanistan were “morally and intellectually confused”. The obvious absurdities of that comment are pointed out and responded to by Keith Olbermann on MSNBC who said:

But, to date, this government has proved little besides its own arrogance, and its own hubris. Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or intellectually, about his own standing in this matter. From Iraq to Katrina, to flu vaccine shortages, to the entire “Fog of Fear” which continues to envelope this nation – he, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and their cronies, have – inadvertently or intentionally – profited and benefited, both personally, and politically. And yet he can stand up in public, and question the morality and the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the Emporer’s New Clothes. In what country was Mr. Rumsfeld raised? As a child, of whose heroism did he read? On what side of the battle for freedom did he dream one day to fight? With what country has he confused… the United States of America?

A video of Mr. Olbermann’s statement (and transcript) can be found here. A video of Mr. Rumsfeld’s speech can be found here.

I don’t think a country that holds civilians captive without trial or even being charged with a crime can really make claims of fascism among other governments. Then again, it takes one to know one.

Here’s a link to a sample chapter from Zoo Guide: A Bible-Based Handbook to the Zoo.

It truly is terrific reading. But it makes one think. My new rule?

You can’t accept any science if you don’t accept all science.

Evolution is a theory which has come about out of scientific research – the scientific method so to speak. If you don’t accept the results of so many reputable scientists (the near unanimous support of evolution as a working theory) you obviously have a problem with the scientific method, and therefore you shouldn’t accept anything derived from it.

To gain a better understanding that there was no “living creature death” before the Fall of Adam, we must interpret the Bible correctly and read what God has written. God’s Word plainly teaches that death is the result of sin. Therefore, there was no human or animal (nephesh chayyâh) death before sin. Adam, Eve, and all the animals ate plants and probably lower invertebrates before the Fall.

Yeah. That’s good science. It also shows that God HATES invertebrates. I always thought a slug’s antennas looked a lot like horns. And if any creationist out there needs proof that we descended from monkeys, just look at George W. Bush.

The New York Times has an article about a new study that shows that charter schools arn’t all they’re cracked up to be.

The study, based on data from 2003 on students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, found charter school students significantly behind their non-charter-school counterparts.

The article points out that:

They should instead home in on the all-important but largely neglected issue of teacher training and preparation — which trumps everything when it comes to improving student achievement.

The No Child Left Behind Act emphasises highly qualified teachers. What it does not address sufficiently is that there is a huge gap between knowing the subject matter and being a good teacher. As someone who’s been through both public and private schools, I know first hand that having a good teacher is the single biggest factor in the education of children.

While many school districts have ‘proffesional development’ programs, I don’t think any of them recieve the time or funding needed.

The most fundamental laws of nature exist only because God wills them to; they are the logical, orderly way that the Lord upholds and sustains the universe He has created. The atheist is unable to account for the logical, orderly state of the universe. Why should the universe obey laws if there is no law-giver? But laws of nature are perfectly consistent with biblical creation. In fact, the Bible is the foundation for natural laws.

Ah yes. The classic circular argument. God is the creator of natural laws because God created them. I also like the question, “Why should the universe obey laws if there is no law-giver?” Do Christians really believe that a rock doesn’t spontaneously explode because it is afraid of divine retribution?

Since we have been made in God’s image, we instinctively know the laws of logic. We are able to reason logically (though because of finite minds and sin we don’t always think entirely logically).

Perhaps it’s believing every word you read in a dusty old book that makes YOU unable to think logically.

We have seen that the laws of nature depend on other laws of nature, which ultimately depend on God’s will. Thus, God created the laws of physics in just the right way so that the laws of chemistry would be correct, so that life can exist.

Laws depend on god’s will. Thus god created the laws. HOLY CRAP I don’t understand how anyone could accept that argument! Can anyone explain this to me?

The Human Rights Campaign website has a new feature – “Out in Scripture” Yes, it is what you think.

I’ve always thought of gay and christian as almost contradictory. To be gay and christian means you need to edit out the parts of scripture that you don’t like. That begs the question, what makes the edited parts any less valid than the unedited parts? It’s like reading World War II literature and choosing not to believe in the Holocaust. Alright, I know that’s an unfair analogy – but what I’m trying to ask is if you feel you can ignore certain parts of a belief system, doesn’t that sort of also invalidate the parts that you do believe in? If you can’t take the bible’s word on homosexuality how can you take its word on anything else?

People grow up in church – they get comfortable in church – they rely on it as a staple of their lives and therefore they don’t question it. Maybe their afraid of losing that part of their lives, something they’ve grown to find comforting. For some reason people think of athiests of being immoral. People think that if they reject the church they’ll be immoral. Morality isn’t a christian exclusive.

I would like to hear the viewpoint of someone who is both gay and religious. I’d like to hear how they deal with the contradictions – how they find peace with it. Any thoughts?